Comments on: Cholesterol Study Leads to Confusionhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/
Tara Parker-Pope on HealthMon, 10 Oct 2016 04:07:10 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9https://static01.nyt.com/images/misc/NYT_logo_rss_250x40.pngNYThttp://www.nytimes.com
By: karahttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-211305
Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:01:51 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-211305Visit http://www.medtipster.com to find your generic equivalent. At medtipster.com, you can search for the low-cost alternatives to your prescriptions. By simply entering prescription drug name, dosage and zip code, you will be provided with a list of $4 drugs and other discount generic pricing information for your prescriptions available at pharmacies in your neighborhood.
]]>By: teffjohnhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-108461
Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:06:53 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-108461As, it is medical community they the worth of life they never do any wrong information in their life.But before taking the drug we have to consider the doctor.
———————————–
teff john

]]>By: margrethttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-107633
Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:51:38 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-107633Dr. Goldberg says she enjoys educating patients about their health, but has been frustrated lately by how much time she has spent trying to undo confusion about the latest cholesterol drug study. The report showed that Vytorin, an expensive branded drug, didn’t do any better job of protecting arteries than a cheaper generic drug. It didn’t do any worse either, but the findings, which surprised the scientific community, have alarmed many patients. Dr. Goldberg says one of her patients thought the drug was being pulled off the market, and others thought the study showed the drug might be risky. Neither is true.
————————————————–
margret

]]>By: amiereshttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21112
Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:15:11 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21112TPP
I must commend you for your responses to comments and I don’t find it rude that you answer in bold in the same comment. I think is good because it addresses the issues immediately for future readers.
Now talking about statistics, if a difference in lummen was observed (in this case 0.0111 mm – 0.0058 mm = 0.0053 mm) but the P value is 0.29 it doesn’t mean there is “no difference” or that its “meaningless”, as you mentioned before. Actually what it means is that there is a 29% probability that the difference was due to chance. In other words, that by pure luck, in this particular study, more people with a tendency for lummen growth happened to fall in the Vytorin group.

But, and this is important, it also means there is a 71% probability that it’s a true effect of the drug!!! 71% is much bigger than 29% and I bet if you were taking the drug yourself you would like to know that little fact right there. If somebody told you that there was a 71% probability that the drug you’re talking would make your lummen grow twice as fast, you would think about it, wouldn’t you?
Since 29% is big number anyway, the only fair thing to say about it’s that the results are INCONCLUSIVE and more studies are needed. Also a closer look on the issue by the FDA would be good.

Nobody is denying the efficacy of statins for patients who have had a heart attack. As to the mechanism that causes atherosclerosis, well unfortunately nobody knows, except, it appears, you. There is not a scientist or doctor on the planet that can equivocally say he knows the full process. Any explanation given is purely theoretical. Thus anybody that claims to know how statins work is not being totally truthful. They have only just recently found out about the Anti inflammatory, blood pressure lowering, platelet stabilising pleiotropic effects. Heaven knows what else they do. All this means of course is that none of these effects were taken into account im many of he studies undertaken.

]]>By: pchttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21111
Sat, 24 May 2008 23:58:14 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21111tpp says: “Also, you are asking about mortality risk vs. loweirng risk for heart attack. I don’t think whether you die is the only endpoint that matters”

Maybe not, but it sure is a far more important endpoint than than a cardiovascular event (which after all maybe a minor heart attack or stroke which is easily recoverable from). Also, a statin is not a guarantee of preventing a heart attack. Oh, and remember those wonderful statistics you are quoting are relative percentages. Read the studies and you will find that the absolute percentage differences between statin and placebo are just a few percent.

]]>By: overviewhealthhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21109
Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:29:12 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21109Health information on mens health and womens health,various health issues,health news on cheap health insurance, recipes like low fat recipes only on overviewhealth.com…
]]>By: luciahttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21108
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:24:37 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21108At 49 I had a M.I.. To this date the official version of my episode is ” spasm of the arthery walls”. I was placed on Lipitor and Lisinopril for long term mainenance. I had major side effects from Lipitor including muscle pain. I was switched to Zocor which I seem to tollerate much better. After 17 months from my episode I was told to stop the Lisinopril but not the Zocor because the benefits outcome the side effects. More than the cholesterol it seems to help with inflammation and spasm. I will still look into other alternatives, I was able to raise my HDL fom 32 ( after taking Lipitor) to 60 with the usual changes, Omega 3 Flaxseed oil and walking. It seems strange to me that nobody mentions Thryglicerides as well instead of LDL only. I could not find any comments on the anti-inflammation benefit of Zocor.
Any suggestions on info in regard to inflammation and spasm?
]]>By: Jeanhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21107
Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:09:24 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21107Maybe its time that the FDA got OUT of bed with the pharmaceutical industry and doctors learned more about how the human body works and stopped being the local drug pusher.
Maybe John Q Citizen should eat less, eat healthier food and exercise more.
]]>By: Oigenhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21106
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:37:50 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21106At the beginning of the cholesterol myth Big Pharma attempted to do a study. The researches complained that they couldn’t find enough participants with levels above 240, the then average,for the study. So they arbitrarily, by edict, declared that levels should be at or less than 200 which of course produced candidates galore. And that artificial level has been used ever since.
]]>By: Larry Thielhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21105
Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:56:38 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21105I’m 44 years old. I have never had my cholesterol level checked, and I never will.
Drug companies are trying to make money.
They hope they can convince you that you have a problem and they have a drug that can help you.
For a large price.
And they hope, for the rest of your life.
Don’t fall for it.
]]>By: william sheehanhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21098
Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:46:54 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21098RE # 81 With apologies .. Your flailing against an avalanche of serious, validated INTERNATIONAL literature on this subject ! Most recently in the Jan 15th issue of the American Journal of Cardiology and recent American Journal of Medicine there are four articles supporting and explaining the reasons for the efficacy of statin medications. Bibliographies enumerated alone could, if bound, fill volumes. Check them out !!
]]>By: JC Bhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21104
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:48:06 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21104Or alternatively perhaps “uninformed” = no knowedge of cause of atheroscerosis + high dose drug therapy without knowledge of mode of action + no proof of efficacy of therapy + ignorance of adverse side effects?
]]>By: william sheehanhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21097
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:00:08 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21097Re # 75 , 76 & 79 Well , OK … Yes Statins are’nt for everybody! ( By the way … In case YOU were’nt aware, taking the necessary high doses of Niacin can cause one to feel VERY unpleasant ) And while the speculation in some circles ( the uninformed) will go on endlessly over the efficacy of statin therapy ( Kind of reminds one of the dispute over chlorinating water!), there is a time to realize that with the giant challenge of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes and patients with an APPROPRIATE history statins will be part of their medical future …. although perhaps not yours !!
]]>By: JC Bhttp://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/comment-page-2/#comment-21099
Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:50:16 +0000http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/cholesterol-study-leads-to-confusion/#comment-21099Re#75 – Yes, and while you are at it you can also consider the difference between association and causality. As a writer in the NY Times summarizing the research concludes:

“Because medical authorities have always approached the cholesterol hypothesis as a public health issue, rather than as a scientific one, we’re repeatedly reminded that it shouldn’t be questioned. Heart attacks kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, statin therapy can save lives, and skepticism might be perceived as a reason to delay action. So let’s just trust our assumptions, get people to change their diets and put high-risk people on statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Science, however, suggests a different approach: test the hypothesis rigorously and see if it survives. If the evidence continues to challenge the role of cholesterol, then rethink it, without preconceptions, and consider what these other pathways in cardiovascular disease are implying about cause and prevention. A different hypothesis may turn out to fit the facts better, and one day help prevent considerably more deaths.”